Share this

In a POLITICO Opinion piece Grover Norquist and Patrick Gleason of Americans for Tax Reform write that Mitt Romney should choose Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal as his running mate. The presumptive Republican presidential nominee "would do well to have a wing man who can astutely explain the flaws in President Barack Obama’s policies and lay out the GOP’s innovative, pro-growth alternatives."

Would Jindal be Romney's best choice for the vice-presidential slot? If not, who should Romney tap as understudy?

I don't know if Gov. Jindal would be Romney's best choice, but he would certainly be a damn good one.

Gov. Jindal has been a steady and effective chief executive for Louisiana, which as most people know, can present some unique challenges. Bobby Jindal has weathered the storms of oil spills, old politics and a tough economy to great success during his two terms as governor. He was a strong and important voice in prodding the administration to get it right when it came to not only helping Louisiana but the entire region during the Gulf oil spill. Smart, insightful and down to earth, Gov. Jindal would "round out" very well the purported sharper edges of Mitt Romney and be a solid partner in governing the country.

Gov. Romney would do well to take a serious look at the quiet but effective governor from Louisiana.

Gov. Jindal would be a superb choice for vice president, combining a strong administrative track record with courage, philosophical depth, and impeccable reform credentials. He would also be seen as an unconventional, break-the-mold historic candidacy, much like Sen. Rubio.

Sen. Portman would contribute a massive record of public service and legislative achievement coupled with a strategic geographical base in Ohio. Rep. Ryan and Sen. Toomey would boost the ticket with the political base by their passionate advocacy of pro-growth economic policy while framing the Republican message for swing state sensibilities. Any of these choices would contribute gravitas and political energy to a GOP team casting itself as an economic tonic to a battered economy, and an alternative to a discredited status quo.

Jindal may be a smart guy (and a decent governor, I don't know), but he just telegraphs dork. Go back and watch his totally panned response to Obama's State of the State address. It was so embarrassingly awkward, forced and herky-jerky that it makes Romney seem like Bill Clinton or JFK at the podium. Jindal just doesn't have the gravitas, stature or force of personality, at least at this point, to be taken seriously as next-in-line for the presidency. (And lest we forget, he also thought Rick Perry, the Borat of the 2012 presidential race, would have made a peachy-keen commander in chief. Suspect political judgment, as well as a dweeb-like personality?)

There are more kinds of lies in politics than there are Inuit words for snow. And when Mitt Romney said the other day that he didn’t have a short list for VP, he was telling a “Washington lie,” a false statement meant to forestall further questions without actually deceiving anyone: "We really haven't had a discussion yet of putting together a list or evaluating various candidates," Romney said.

Despite his denial, Romney has a short list for VP that includes Gov. Mitch Daniels and Gov. Bobby Jindal. Romney also has a list of tall people.

Former New Hampshire Gov. John Sununu, a Romney adviser, told NPR that Romney’s list of possible vice presidential nominees is 20 names long, including Marco Rubio, Kelly Ayotte, and Rob Portman. I was shocked to discover recently that “Rob Portman” is not a generic placeholder name but was actually George W. Bush’s U.S. Trade Representative when he traded our jobs for magic beans. Later Portman was Bush’s Director of the Office of Management and Budget when that administration turned a surplus into record deficits. That experience could help a President Romney deal with the budget deficit much in the same way the Leonardo Dicaprio character in Catch Me If You Can helped the FBI catch check forgers and con men after he was arrested for similar crimes. Or it could just be a really bad idea.

One person no longer on the short list is New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez. She checks a lot of boxes as a swing state Latina, but she crossed herself off when she criticized Romney’s self-deportation strategy on illegal immigration, adding, “I have no doubt Hispanics have been alienated during this campaign.” A simple “no thank you” would also have been acceptable.

But don’t mention any names to Romney. Diane Sawyer dangled the Rubio carrot in front of him but failed to get Romney to bite. "Well I think he's one of the terrific leaders in our party, but I think it's way too early to begin narrowing down who the potential vice presidential nominees might be," said Romney. "But we're beginning that process, we'll talk about a lot of folks, and then go through the kind of vetting and review process that you have to go through to make sure whoever you select will pass the evaluation that's required by the American people."

In other words: Not Sarah Palin, nor anyone like her. And definitely someone who knows Africa is not one country and that Queen Elizabeth is not the head of England’s government.

Picking a vice presidential nominee is usually an exercise in overcompensation. Weak in the South, JFK picked LBJ. Weak on decency, Richard Nixon chose Gerald Ford. And when George W. Bush seemed like he needed parental supervision, he tagged Dick Cheney. It’s not a perfect system.

Republicans would be safer if Mitt Romney overcompensated for his shortcomings by buying a sports car. Romney can’t pick a well-loved candidate without highlighting that he’s the least-liked nominee in a generation. Besides, choosing someone who is better liked than Mitt doesn’t narrow down the list at all.

The last nominee who chose a VP to accentuate his own positives was Bill Clinton, who probably knows a little something about how a wingman can help you close the deal. Al Gore Jr. amplified Clinton’s virtues — a young Southerner with a new take on Democratic ideals. Romney could pick a running mate who amplifies his own special brand of “You must pay the rent” capitalism, but Ken Lay is dead, Jamie Dimon of JPMorgan Chase is under FBI investigation, and Montgomery Burns is a fictional character.

Ironically, the best advice on picking a travel buddy for the campaign trail comes from Mitt’s dad, George Romney. When George ran for president in 1968 he released 12 years of his taxes, saying, “One year could be a fluke, perhaps done for show.” This year, Mitt has only released one year of his taxes. In other words, Romney should choose someone after getting a heck of a lot more information from them than he has deigned to share with voters about himself.

There’s a special someone out there for Mitt Romney who will look just perfect standing next to him atop the Republican ticket. In fact, there are dozens of Republicans out there qualified to be Vice President. The real problem is that Mitt has too many weaknesses for any one running mate to overcome.

Bobby Jindal would be an excellent choice. Another superb pick would be Ohio Senator Rob Portman.

It's not just that Republicans need to win Ohio. Besides Portman's service in the Senate and House of Representatives, he has been U.S. Trade Representative and OMB Director. This breadth of experience, and the ability to work with Congress would be useful in dealing with domestic and global economic challenges. Plus, Portman was a model of discretion during the Supercommittee deliberations, a refreshing change for a politician.

Aaron MannesUniversity of Maryland scholar on terrorism and international affairs :

There are two sides to the equation of vice presidential selection. The first of course is who can help the nominee win the election. The second question is who will be most helpful at governing I have little to add to the first point (not that this has ever stopped me before), but some knowledge of the second question (I am writing a PhD thesis on the Evolving National Security Role of the Vice Presidency.)

Years ago, at a computer science conference, I attended a lecture on entrepreneurship and one of the key points was that in choosing a partner, the entrepreneur should select someone that they won't mind being in trouble with for the next 5-10 years. The same advice goes for selecting the vice president. Unlike cabinet officers and White House staffers, vice presidents can't be fired. They can be ignored, but that is inefficient. The vice presidency is an excellent opportunity to bring a skilled high-level advisor into the White House.

The primary visible role of the vice president is as a messenger. This is not meant as a denigration of the vice presidency. Communicating the administration's position in public and in private to domestic and international audiences and constituencies is very important and will be a tremendous asset to the President. During the Iran hostage crisis, Vice President Mondale took on campaign tasks. Vice President Bush delivered a crucial message on human rights to El Salvador's leaders and on the Reagan administration's nuclear strategy to European publics and leaders. Vice President Gore played a critical role ensuring the passage of NAFTA by destroying Perot in a public debate and helped reassure Russia's leadership through the Gore-Chernomyrdin Commission.

But this is only the public role, and presumably any experienced politician should be able to fulfill this role capably.

Since the Carter administration, vice presidents have had an office in the West Wing, along with regular access to White House meetings, and the president. The vice president is thus well-positioned to be a leading advisor. While presidents have no shortage of advisors, these advisors are rarely experienced elected officials of national standing in their own right. Such an official is unlikely to take a White House staff position and when they take a cabinet position they become mired in the interests of their department. As Charles Dawes - a marginalized vice president - once observed, "Cabinet secretaries are vice presidents in charge of spending, and as such are the natural enemies of the president."

As a fellow senior elected official and decision-maker the vice president is position to provide a unique perspective to the President. With that in mind, the question becomes what kinds of skills and perspectives does Romney believe will best augment his own strengths and weaknesses?

Romney, has touted the importance of executive experience. But one area where Romney's own resume is lacking is Washington experience. Although inside-the-beltway has become a pejorative term, Washington is a unique environment that will prove challenging to a newcomer (even a president.) Jimmy Carter famously chose Walter Mondale precisely for his Washington experience. There is little to praise about the Carter presidency, but that administration's president-vice president relationship did establish a useful model. Carter, an engineer by training, sought the ideal solutions to problems without regard to the politics of the issue. Mondale attempted to act as the President's political radar and inject that perspective into the decision-making process.

Romney may look at the pool of individuals who have both executive, Washington, and electoral experience. This list is not meant to be comprehensive, but a few possibilities include former Senator and current Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback, former OMB chief and current governor Mitch Daniels, and former OMB chief and current Sen. Rob Portman. Bobby Jindal, a governor and a former congressman also fits that description. One interesting caveat on that point is the age gap. In recent years, younger vice presidents have not been central advisors to older presidents. Nixon, while valued by Eisenhower was not a key advisor and Quayle was not a member of Bush Senior's inner circle of advisors (although he was generally believed to be a member of the outer circle of the top eight advisors.)

More than who he should pick for VP, Romney should be thinking about how he should pick.

There are at least four different algorithms that lead to a choice. First, Romney should pick someone who can deliver a state that might not otherwise vote for him, a state that has at least ten Electoral College votes. Ohio? Pennsylvania?

Second, a VP pick can shore up credentials for the ticket that are otherwise weak. Think of Obama’s pick of Biden for his expertise on foreign policy. Third, he might make a choice that increases support among a key national constituency. Would Rubio carry the Hispanic vote? Would a woman break the gender gap? Finally, he might choose a running mate who has a very similar appeal to underline the core message of the campaign. Think of Clinton choosing Gore and thereby presenting a youthful, dynamic ticket of new Democrats. Whoever he chooses, it should be someone who meets two basic tests: someone reasonably prepared to assume the office (no “Palins”) and someone with whom he can get along and delegate important responsibilities. Gone are the days when a Kennedy could isolate and ignore LBJ as Robert Caro has so poignantly documented.

This is the first in a long list of "paybacks" that Romney has accumulated and which will come due if elected.

Do not think for one minute that large cash donors like Koch, Friesse, Adelson have given money as an inspiration of the heart. Grover Norquist and Patrick Gleason are just additional names on the I.O.U. list to be compensated. They (the large donors) will be telling Romney if elected who and where in his administration along with the PAC and super PACs.

The Republican VP choice will be pandering to a specific electorate in an attempt to make Romney more appealing. Jindal is just one choice to be had.

Romney needs a VP contender who can bolster the governor’s limited government bona fides and push back on the “War on Women” narrative coming from the White House. Congresswoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA) ?may just be that candidate. Vice Chair of the House Republican Conference and a co-chair of the Congressional Caucus for Women's Issues, McMorris would send a strong message to the Obama campaign that Republicans oppose the kind of cradle-to-grave policies the president has advanced in the name of “protecting” women. She could help articulate the message that women - and men - benefit from less government and more freedom in education, health care, entitlements, and the workplace.

Ultimately, however, this is the bottom of the ticket, which historically doesn’t usually have a serious impact on voter behavior. It’s true Sarah Palin breathed new life into the McCain campaign, but that was during an election when there was overwhelming enthusiasm for the opposition. This year, as Obama sags in the polls, this is not the case, making it less likely that the VP candidate will have as dramatic an impact on the election.

Romney needs a running mate who’ll soften the little Richie Rich Bain Capital bully image that’s now forming. In an election in which affinity with Americans in distress may actually count for something, he needs a tough Republican with a common touch and a soul. Jindal? I don’t think so.

Romney can't vp his way out of his difficulties. He needs someone who can excite his base, reach swing voters, and help with women and Latinos. There are too many Romney shortcomings to simply delegate them all to a vp candidate.

There is no doubt that Gov. Jindal belongs on Gov. Romney's short list for the vice president position.

Gov. Jindal would bring an impressive record to this ticket as a successful southern governor whose conservative economic credentials of accomplishment would be an extraordinary compliment to the Romney message. However, there is no question that Romney and his team are extremely fortunate to have a deep bench of viable candidates available to them - ranging from some of the more publicly established conservative figures such as Gov. Christie, former Gov. Huckabee, Senator Rubio and Senator Portman to some of the lesser defined, but equally impressive options like Gov. Fallin and Martinez.

Whether it turns out to be a Romney/Jindal ticket or any of the numerous other powerful options, Republicans will surely end up holding an advantage over the incumbent vice president.

Jano Cabrera Chairman, Issues & Crisis Group at Burson Marsteller; former national spokesman for former Vice President Al Gore :

Romney and his closest campaign advisors are likely keeping in mind the last war. By that I mean, they’re looking not to repeat what some saw as a key mistake of John McCain’s 2008 race, the selection of Sarah Palin as his running mate. Looking to inject some needed conservative oomph into a lackluster campaign, Team McCain turned to a political neophyte who admittedly started strong but in retrospect – at least by most politicos – was seen as a mistake; Palin was not ready for the limelight and by the end of the campaign a significant number of voters said she was not ready to be President.

But if Team Romney is thinking, we won’t pick another Palin, they’re already going down the wrong path. The reality is that they do need a Sarah Palin. While selecting a VP was once about geography (such as when Kennedy picked Johnson, helping lock-in the Lone Star state), today it’s really about what the nominee is lacking. Hence Clinton picked Gore, another Southerner – but one with expertise in foreign policy and the environment, two Clinton weaknesses; Bush picked Cheney, because he was seen as somewhat inexperienced and again lacking in the foreign policy arena (remember, most of Bush’s foreign trips prior to becoming president were to Mexico and Canada). The real mistake the McCain team made wasn’t in picking someone that made up for some of McCain’s weaknesses; it was that they never truly vetted their pick.

So what is Romney lacking? In the parlance of the Wizard of Oz – he’s fine on brains, but lacks heart, courage and Dorothy. He needs a heart because his vulture-capital-I-don’t-care-about-the-poor-I-need-an-elevator-for-my-cars-at-my-beach-house ways don’t really resonate with working Americans. No one wants to have a beer with Romney. Though, they wouldn’t mind if he paid. From the perspective of most conservatives who literally tried out everyone but Romney (9-9-9 times), they don’t see Romney as having true conservative courage. As for Dorothy, Romney certainly has a problem with women voters.

And while Sen. Kelly Ayotte checks many of these boxes, I hope that ultimately Romney goes with Gingrich. Why? It has nothing to do with any of the above. I just can’t get enough of that crazy guy.

Mitt Romney would do better to select an understudy with strong social conservative credentials or a nationally known profile. Gov. Jindal brings some good qualities to the table, but also carries a trolley full of baggage that President Obama could use to attack Romney’s ties with special interests.

Jindal has been heavily influenced by Louisiana’s oil industry. As a congressman, he accepted hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from it while pushing a bill to open the entire U.S. coastline to drilling. As governor, he weakened Louisiana’s Oil Spill Coordinator’s office to the point where it didn’t have enough resources to implement a “worst-case” spill plan. An actions that may likely have helped muddle his state’s response to the Deep Water Horizon disaster. One that top killed $20 billion from the U.S. economy.

My money is on Rep. Paul Ryan, former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, or former Gov. Tim Pawlenty. Ryan brings youth, energy and ambition, Rice strong foreign policy experience, and Pawlenty applause from evangelicals. Any of those three would give Romney enough of a boost to make the general election a nail-biter.

In order to balance out the ticket, Mitt should pick a boring white guy whose extreme policies offend women and alienate Latinos while still failing to excite the base of his party he has spent six years pandering to... Oh, wait...

Trey HardinSenior VP at VOX Global; political commentator; former campaign manager and aide to House Leadership :

Presidential elections are not typically won or lost on the VP pick. The pick can help shore up a swing state or provide an appealing balance or reinforcement to the ticket but voters will ultimately pull the lever for the presidential candidate of their choice. However, that theory could be tested, and possibly turned upside down, this year because of two factors: the inter-party challenges for Romney; and the ever-increasing intensity of the independent women vote.

First, Romney doesn’t have the luxury of only focusing on independents. Though Romney has secured the nomination, his campaign is fully aware that they still have a turnout challenge with the GOP base. McCain somewhat faced this challenge in ’08 but not nearly to the degree for Romney. Northeast republicans lack the “conservative chops” in the eyes of many GOPers elsewhere in the nation – including key battleground states. Turning out the base – a must for both parties – is not something Romney can take for granted. Therefore, selecting a conservative running mate must be a consideration for him.

Second, the independent voting bloc in the U.S. has never been larger than it is now and the most active voters within that bloc are women. Both Obama and Romney are clearly fighting for that vote but Romney has an opportunity to one-up the president by selecting a woman as his running mate.

Gov. Jindal is a rising star in the GOP and certainly has a political future but Romney can give this VP pick more electoral influence by selecting South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley.

I saw Jindal speak in New Orleans a few years ago and I was very impressed. He was personable and loose - the opposite of how he came off during his big national television debut. He demonstrated obvious policy chops but was also quite smooth during the grip and grin. Given his resume and evident intellect, he eliminates any potential for Palin-esque surprises. And he brings a ton of Indian money, although that's probably the last of Romney's worries.

I don't, however, think he's the best choice, for a few reasons. First, he does nothing to reduce the gender gap. Second, he doesn't help in the Appalachian hollows in swing states like Ohio and Virginia where both Romney and Obama have struggled to connect; in the eyes of those voters he's just as "exotic" as Obama.

Third, the exorcism. Do the Republicans really want to put up 1) a guy who sadistically pins down boys he suspects are gay to shear them and 2) a guy who pins down women he thinks are possessed by Satan to exorcise them? That's a lotta weird for one ticket. Seamus - God rest his soul - couldn't even get any airtime with such rich material pushing to the forefront.

There are a number of Republicans who would serve as excellent vice presidential running mates, including Gov. Bob McDonnell of Virginia. McDonnell is currently one of the most popular governors in the nation. There is good reason why. As governor, he has focused primarily on improving Virginia’s economy, which has endeared him to the majority of Virginia’s citizens - Republicans, Democrats, and Independents alike.

When McDonnell took office in 2010, he inherited an approximately $2.2 billion budget shortfall from outgoing Democratic Gov. Tim Kaine. McDonnell quickly rectified the state’s financial mess. He balanced the state’s budget without raising taxes, and in doing so, generated back-to-back billion-dollar budget surpluses. Even better, Virginia’s unemployment rate has steadily dropped from 7.2 percent (when McDonnell took office) to 5.6 percent, the lowest in three years and currently the lowest in the Southeast.

McDonnell would assist Romney for another key reason. Conservatives are warming to Romney, but some remain hesitant to fully embrace him. As a strong social conservative, McDonnell could aid in rallying the base around Romney as November approaches.

The fiscally conservative (and wildly successful) manner in which McDonnell has governed in Virginia stands in stark contrast to the tax-and-spend, liberal policies embraced by Obama in Washington. By picking McDonnell as his running mate, Romney would have a strong partner who could deftly highlight and explain the flaws of the president’s policies.

At one point Bobby Jindal was on the short list for Republican presidential candidates. And then he delivered the worst response to the State of the Union in American history. Even Tim Kaine's unruly eyebrows gave a better speech. Of course the Republican Party is the party of second chances, which is why they're stuck with Romney as the nominee. Now they're frantically searching for a running mate who could liven up the ticket and rally the base and, if possible, completely eclipse the man at the top. Kind of like Sarah Palin but more mentally stable. Bobby Jindal is not the guy. Not when there's a Paul Ryan or a Chris Christie or a Marco Rubio or a...Rob Portman.

If you haven't heard of Rob Portman then you must be outside the Beltway like the majority of voters and not obsessing daily over Romney's number two. Portman's main qualification is that he happens to be a senator from Ohio, a crucial battleground state. However in order to shore up the women's vote Romney should consider a woman like Gov. Nikki Haley or the wild card - Gov. Jan Brewer. There's your game changer.

Mitt Romney must choose between taking the safe route or making an unconventional pick. The safe route includes the following possibilities: Mitch Daniels, Bob McDonnell, Tim Pawlenty and Rob Portman. But none of these picks will generate much buzz among the conservative base.

If Mitt Romney wants to motivate his base and generate excitement among conservatives, then he should pick Scott Walker. Walker is now the darling of the conservative movement, and he is poised to survive the recall campaign, for which he's raised millions of dollars from across the country. Scott Walker would be an unconventional pick but he would help Romney where he needs it most: with his conservative base.

Gov. Bobby Jindal would risk repeating the Sarah Palin blunder - and he'd bring less passion to the ticket than she did to McCain's. Not only does Jindal not understand the ways of Washington (neither does Romney), his leadership was called into question during the BP oil disaster. The man to bolster the ticket in a way certain to undercut President Obama is Colin Powell.

Romney should tear a page from Bill Clinton's playbook and choose a running mate that reflects his sensibilities the way Gore, as a young, southern, somewhat moderate centrist (at the time), drew attention to those very same attributes in Clinton.

In this case, Rob Portman would seem to fit the bill. Like Romney, he's serious, has impeccable credentials on the economy, isn't the flashiest of characters (Romney isn't going to out-charisma the president, so why try?), and has the added value of being from a critical - perhaps THE critical - swing state.

A Romney-Portman ticket would signify that Romney is going to make the campaign a referendum on the economy and long term entitlement spending, two issues that could potentially work in his favor. And it'll help solidify Romney's "narrative" that he's a serious person comfortable with policy minutiae, and perhaps make him comfortable campaigning that way, rather than pretending to be a relatable, regular guy - something he's not.

Women are the swing voters of 2012 and the majority of the country. We make most household decisions when it comes to budgets, health care, and education. Poll after poll tells us where the men stand - it is the women whose votes are in flux and who are looking for motivation in this election.

Mitt Romney blamed his paucity of Bain female executives on a dearth of talent - an unlikely story but not a problem today as there are plenty of GOP female politicos who can serve ably. Sen. Kelly Ayotte, Congresswoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers and Gov. Nikki Haley are three Republican women who could enhance the ticket and run the country - not that they'll need to as I believe President Obama will win.

Dewey ClaytonProfessor of Political Science, University of Louisville :

I do not think that Gov. Bobby Jindal would bring much to the table as Mitt Romney's running mate. I think that Florida Sen. Marco Rubio would be a much better choice.

For one, Rubio is from a swing state - one that went to Barack Obama in 2008. The Republicans were taken aback and somewhat embarrassed by losing Florida and they are committed to winning Florida in 2012. If your vice presidential selection can pick up one state for you, then that is more than you can ask for. Rubio can increase the Romney's chances of winning Florida in 2012.

Second, Marco Rubio is a Latino. Recent public opinion polling shows that at this point in the presidential race, President Obama has a huge lead over Mitt Romney among Latinos. Latinos are the fastest growing minority in this country and their political clout continues to grow. Marco Rubio, is young, articulate and backed by the tea party. He parents are naturalized citizens from Cuba and Rubio is a first-generation American now serving in the United States Senate. That is the essence of the American dream and one that the Republicans should be eager to showcase.

Gov. Jindal, on the other hand, delivered the Republican response to President Obama's State of the Union Address several years ago which was not well received by even members of the Republican Party. He lacks the charisma and enthusiasm as a vice presidential choice that Romney needs to excite members of the Republican Party, Independents, and Latinos.

Who should Romney choose or who will he choose? There's little chance he will choose Jindal whose handful of moments in the national spotlight have been failures.

If Romney really wants to win, he will throw common wisdom out the window - that Sarah Palin ruined it for other women - and choose Susanna Martinez or Kelly Ayotte. Who will Romney choose? He has no comfort level with anyone who isn't like him, so I suspect he's on the lookout for his own Dan Quayle - a relatively inexperienced white man who won't upstage Romney in qualifications or political skill.

While I think that Gov. Jindal is an attractive candidate in all sorts of ways, I think his candidacy would be a distraction to the Romney campaign.

Odd as it seems intuitively, a “vanilla” candidate, someone who thrives on not exciting anyone, needs a running mate who does not shine, lest the candidate be outshone. In addition, I agree with those who say that Romney needs an anti-Palin, someone chosen because he (or she, I suppose) is clearly prepared to take over the presidency should that awful circumstance eventuate. For those reasons, I am solidly in the Portman, Daniels, and Pawlenty column. The Romney camp would do well to remember that presidential candidates have to go back to LBJ, more than half a century ago, to find a vice presidential nominee who clearly delivered a large bloc of electoral votes on Election Day.

The central criteria in the GOP VP search should not be wanting a “wing man”. That whole concept is what is wrong with American politics today. Wing men and women are driving politics off the cliff. Gov. Jindal would be a strong VP choice because of his detailed knowledge of public policy, intelligence, and strong leadership in Louisiana, but not because he is a wing man.

Jindal is part of the strong bench the Republican Party has for the future (2016 and 2020). As Norquist and Gleason write, he has many strengths and although not a nationally known politician, would not be a Sarah Palin vice presidential candidate.

He is bright, young and diverse, yet still somewhat of a risk for Romney. Like Romney, he has no foreign policy experience and brings little to the electoral picture for Romney. He would play well where Romney will already do well. It's hard to know how he would be received in the Midwest where most people believe the election will be won or lost.

Boring and also nationally unknown but a solid choose would be Rob Portman of Ohio. He would contrast well against Biden, knows Washington and helps with Ohio, which is key to a victory for either Romney or Obama. While lacking deep foreign policy credentials, his time in Congress (House and Senate) and his time in the Bush administration allows him to speak with some authority.

More POLITICO Arena

About the Arena

The Arena is a cross-party, cross-discipline forum for intelligent and lively conversation about political and policy issues. Contributors have been selected by POLITICO staff and editors. David Mark, Arena's moderator, is a Senior Editor at POLITICO. Each morning, POLITICO sends a question based on that day's news to all contributors.